Date: 19980202
Docket: T-2766-96
IN THE MATTER OF THE Citizenship Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29
AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from a decision
of a citizenship judge
AND IN THE MATTER OF
AMENA WEISS,
Appellant.
JUDGMENT AND REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PINARD J.:
[1] On November 1, 1996, a citizenship judge dismissed the appellant's application for Canadian citizenship on the grounds that she had failed to comply with paragraphs 5(1)(d) and 5(1)(e)1 of the Citizenship Act (the "Act").
[2] This proceeding is de novo in nature. Because to all intents and purposes the appellant knows neither English nor French, one of her sons was sworn and acted as interpreter at the hearing of this appeal. When questioned before me by the amicus curiae, the appellant did not demonstrate that she had an adequate knowledge of one of the two official languages, or an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship.
[3] Since the citizenship judge did not recommend to the Minister responsible that he exempt the appellant from the requirements relating to language and knowledge of Canada on compassionate grounds, I now intend to consider whether there are special circumstances that would justify such a recommendation. (With respect to the Court's jurisdiction in this regard, see the decision of Chief Justice Thurlow in Re Dr. Aurelio Salon, Jr. (1978), 88 D.L.R. (3d) 238).
[4] The appellant has never attended school in her life. She is illiterate and has never worked outside the family home. She married at the age of fourteen, gave birth to fifteen children and reared eleven of them. Her children and her husband, who is sixty years old and retired, are all Canadian citizens. The appellant is now fifty-five years old, is surrounded by her family and never goes out alone.
[5] Having regard to these special circumstances, I do not believe that denying the appellant Canadian citizenship can serve any purpose. I am therefore of the opinion that this is a case in which, for compassionate reasons, the appellant should be exempted from the requirements set out in paragraphs 5(1)(d) and 5(1)(e) of the Citizenship Act.
[6] Accordingly, I recommend, as the amicus curiae in fact suggested, that ministerial discretion be exercised in order that the appellant be granted Canadian citizenship.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
February 2, 1998
Certified true translation
C. Delon, LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO: T-2766-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: Citizenship Act
v.
Amena Weiss
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: January 27, 1998
JUDGMENT AND REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
DATED FEBRUARY 2, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Amena Weiss FOR THE APPELLANT
Jean Caumartin AMICUS CURIAE
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jean Caumartin AMICUS CURIAE
Lawyer
Montréal, Quebec
__________________
1 Paragraphs 5(1)(d) and 5(1)(e) read as follows: 5.(1) The Minister shall grant citizenship to any person who ... ( d) has an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada; ( e) has an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship;